can the people of Stocksbridge keep the footpaths and byways of our valley?
Samuel Fox put our valley to work for the people’s benefit. However, what have Dransfield Developments done that will benefit our valley today or in the future?
If only they would listen to what people actually want rather than producing documents which only state that they have held consultations (with a chosen few).
The removal of Ford Lane public right of way (a definitive path and bridleway) along the Little Don Valley was to have been subject to a public inquiry. Why is this not happening?
During the understandable tweaking of plans for this project, why has there been no meaningful level of consultation with the public on rights of way?
And why was it very limited involvement by the chosen few at ‘stakeholder’ private meetings? Was it divide and conquer? What exactly is the definition of ‘stakeholder’ in relation to public rights of way diversion and enhancements?
Putting a right of way through a retail park instead of supporting a green corridor link for the valley’s benefits can only benefit developers and in no way enhances local facilities.
More consideration needs to be given to the safety of horse riders: we recently read of yet another death from a horse being spooked.
Considering the bypass’s heavy volume of traffic, surely putting a bridleway alongside it is not ideal. A multi-user route along the valley bottom would be far more appropriate.
The proposed plan for housing (on a flood plain) needs serious consideration. And what about Stocksbridge’s problems?
Bernard (not a stakeholder)